Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Deletion policy 2007-12-21

Draft

I copied this from GWW; I think there should no problem in reusing this (apart from U3 as we don't have a User policy yet, but I think it will come :P). When we get the parser extensions policy this will also look good :P poke | talk 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any issues with this myself, but it's a biut early, considering some users want us to have informal policies only. Backsword 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please mention it on the policy page or policy talk page somewhere to raise awareness. --Xeeron 21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Opposed. We don't have a mission statement or other foundational issues cleared up, so stating what we delete and what we keep seems premature. —Tanaric 00:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ ^ One of the users I was thinking about. Backsword 00:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm ok, but I think we should at least set up the general deletion process.. poke | talk 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether people think we need policies or not, we have to have certain systems in place. This has been a very good policy @ GWW an imo is more of a howto than anything else. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As it works good on GWW, I see no reason to change it yet, I'd say we keep it as a Policy "until otherwise specification is needed". Rhydeble 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, this policy is one of the needed ones, especially when content comes out. And why wouldn't it be a policy, it doesn't work too well as a guideline, imo. Calor (t) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Imo, it's neither a guideline nor a policy. It's just a how-to, as said above. It is handy to have it here, for people who don't know how delete tags work. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Vipermagi: This is not only a how-to for the deletion template. It dictates that sysops can't delete pages before 3 days have passed and ccertain conditions are met. There's also the large 'speedy deletion' list that lists all cases where an article can be speedily deleted without waiting for the 3 day limit.

What comes to making this a policy, I think that we need something to restrict the sysops, but it doesn't need to be as big as it is now since we don't really have content. Ofcourse why not have the content related deletion and speedy deletion rules from the beginning, since adding them later will only add unnecessary hassle later on. -- (gem / talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

True. I'm very happy with this as it stands. Admin control may or may not be necessary and this can be amended if it becomes an issue. -elviondale (tahlk) 23:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed as well. We don't even have a policy on what we retain and we already want one on what to delete? imo, could we try to set up "article retention" or "content scope" or something similar before we think about that to delete? And seeing how the admin policy is being proposed, the length and verbosity of this policy may not even be necessary. -- ab.er.rant 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the admin policy should be finished of before this, and possibly an article retention policy too, but there's no harm in starting work on this one now. -- (gem / talk) 09:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Working on these sorts of policies this far in advance implants an idea in our culture that policies are really super important. They're not, in fact -- the GuildWiki didn't have any for 15 months or so. By starting work on these, and meaninglessly spinning our wheels about bureaucracy in the absence of content, we typecast our culture in a way that cannot be recovered from when content begins to meaningfully exist.

The greatest harm anybody can do to the wiki right now is insist that these policies are essential or helpful.

—Tanaric 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim that this or most of the other psoposed policies are required at all, but I also don't see any harm in this one. -- (gem / talk) 23:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the rest. We need a deletion policy. Since this wiki is already a public one, it's going to get hit by vandalism more and more. I just ran into a page created solely for vandalism and wouldn't know to mark it for speedy deletion or just put a deletion box there. :S — Galil 14:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stupid amount of categorys

That's a stuipd amournt of cats for something that you can just add a comment on the end of the delete tag RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? poke | talk 15:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

wtb troll removal -FireFox 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going with he thinks the huge number of reasons (G1,G2,G3...and so on) is overly complicated and unnecessary. Lord of all tyria 15:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

no, a stupid amount of cats --Cursed Angel 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see like... 2 cats? ~ SCobra 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because what I wrote would be the correct interpretation. Lord of all tyria 16:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a way to compress the speedy deletion rules in a way that doesn't change the meaning, then be my guest and edit the proposal. -- (gem / talk) 16:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that you don't need to put the speedy deletion category in the deletion template, so no one needs to remember the codes or anything. -- (gem / talk) 16:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarize policy into

A page can be marked for deletion using Template:Delete. Add a reason to the template if necessary. An admin will look it over and determine if the page should be deleted. If you have another way of contacting an admin, feel free to do so, but keep in mind that many administrators don't like having their talk page cluttered up.

An administrator may also delete a page on his or her own prerogative.

Ok, can we condense it now? Armond 05:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it's fine as is. That doesn't have examples, and the letter/numbers are to explain things quicker. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Calor (t) 05:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What's faster, {{delete|G3|speedy}} or {{delete|Author request|speedy}}? Besides, what precisely is the through process behind such a specific set of reasons. It seems to be it should be pretty obvious that pages that consist solely of vandalism or which the author(s) have given up on can be deleted immediately... *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should I be forced to use a letter-number combo that requires both myself and the admin to look up what I'm deleting for? I'll admit that's not always the case, but it's just far clearer at first glance, and doesn't bind me to a policy (which is one of the things I didn't like about GWW). Armond 05:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Although we've had the speedy deletion codes at gww for a long time, I never used them, I just typed in the reason. What I think is that the codes for the speedy deletion rules aren't necessary, but the rules themselves are. -- (gem / talk) 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not how things work. Those that know the codes can use them for their convenience, others can write out a reason. It's not an either ot choice. Backsword 13:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not important if the tagging users know the codes but the sysops should be able to check if there is a speedy deletion reason which fits on the reason (and of course on the situation). poke | talk 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any admins should have the power to unilaterally make and enforce editorial decisions. If we do create a "senior editor" position (which I don't think is needed), I think that it should be independant from sysop and bureaucrat status, and that the authority should be restricted to pages within the scope of the projects the individual senior editor is involved in. -- Gordon Ecker 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What Gordon said (except I disagree with "senior editors" more strongly): It should not be withhin sysop discretion to speedily delete any article, however they should be able to delete some articles (vandalism etc) speedily, which is the reason for the list. --Xeeron 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

omfg

this is complicated. isn't it generally obvious when an admin looks at the page and reason that it should be deleted? I'm like, if its not speedy, do i delete it or not? I would rather have a default delete which is general (vandalism, move remnant, user request, whatever) and a separate one for proposed deletions (deletions taht should be discussed rather than deleted outright). the way this is is highly unwieldy and I don't really see it being more useful than a simpler system. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy is straightforward: if a page meets the speedy deletion criteria, it can be deleted immediately, if a page doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, it shouldn't be deleted unless the 3 day timer has expired and the deletion is uncontested or supported by consensus. IMO the 3 day timer isn't a problem because the DPL table at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:List of candidates for deletion highlights pages for which the timer has expired. -- Gordon Ecker 02:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That speedy/not-speedy isn't as confusing as all the codes, imo. What's wrong with just typing "spam", "test( page)" or "vandalism"? --84.24.206.123 07:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write "spam" etc; the codes are generally for the admin to note which speedy reason he's using in the log. For example, if someone just types "vandalism" in the tag, the admin deleting it would likely put "G1 vandalism" in the reason field (or choose it from the dropdown list). I wouldn't say it requires other users to extensively know each and every code, and determining whether something is speedy or not is fairly obvious as Jedi says -- other users can put the |speedy in if they think it's an obvious case, which means it will turn up in the correct field at GW2W:DEL; if it is incorrect and not a speedy case, the admin (or another user) can remove the |speedy. If it is a speedy case but no one puts |speedy in, it doesn't really matter; the list is what can be immediately deleted, not what has to be immediately.

That said, I'm not a big fan of "list everything and everything"; most cases on GWW work effectively with the system, but there are some pages every now and then which obviously don't need 3 days but must wait that period because there's no appropriate criterion. Still, do we need to discuss/implement a policy on deletion yet? Things are going fine at the moment. -- Pling 10:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For now, just {{Delete}} without a reason works fine. Heck, not even the Beta is close, for all we know, so not a lot of vandalism pops up. However, when the beta is going live, we'd better have a solid delete policy ;) Btw, 84.24. is me not logged in. --- -- talkpage 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

When the beta goes live... we can delete spam and vandalism much like we do now. We need to focus on content before policies, lest people get caught up in the GWW mindset that took over a year to remedy. Policies will sort themselves out in time, and should never be the primary focus on a new (small) wiki. -Auron 18:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Implemented?

Why was this one not Implemented? I don't see that it'd hurt to go into effect. Especially, when I have seen a sysop mis-guess and delete things as to how they see fit and it not really make sense. I think this policy is needed for many deletions that have occurred over the past few months. Ariyen 05:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you see things being deleted that you don't think should be, you should probably mention it either to the deleting admin or on the admin noticeboard, so it can be reviewed and either undeleted or explained why it was deleted. I don't really see that passing this policy will be a significant change to the deletion process (other than perhaps more common usage of the codes as shorthand), since it's a copy of GWW's and I think most of us pretty much follow it anyway, but it'll be implemented if and when there's a consensus to implement it. - Tanetris 06:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen made up deletion reasons is all... Sure, things needed deleted, but the reasons aren't fitting to this proposed policy or the policy you all go by on gww. something that all could/would understand... Ariyen 08:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletion reason codes aren't understandable. I'd rather see a sentence to explain the deletion reason I can understand than a code I do not. -- Aspectacle  08:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer an actual reason over a code, although over the last year (maybe two years now?) I've grown more or less accustomed to them. And also, the most useful thing a person can put in the deletion tag is "See talk page." I'd like to see more of that. 08:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to edit the deletion pull down mask to include full sentences instead of the short hand codes? --Xeeron 11:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is on wikia for sure. It uses mediawiki type wiki. If is there, surely is here. Just would need to make sure it fits in the length of like a summary. Ariyen 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, it's here. ~ PheNaxKian talk 17:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't stop people putting codes in deletion tags. Admins who delete stuff are familiar with the codes and probably know what most mean due to necessity, but many users, who might otherwise discuss/contest a proposed deletion, don't. pling 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then implement it under conditions that the codes do not necessarily have to be used? Remove the codes altogether OR use the codes after consensus for deletion has been reached if applicable. We're supposed to have user-friendly policies: Having new users study a wall of text before editing anything is not user-friendly. - Infinite - talk 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that people shouldn't have to use the codes, but at the same time if they are not, then a specific reason for the deletion should be given. I can see it being tiresome if an admin comes across a delete tag where it is not clearly known why it is being deleted. Venom20 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go; specify a clear reason why deletion is appropriate should do it. I'm just not seeing objections to the policy as it stands, so we might as well accept and implement it? - Infinite - talk 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I see nothing wrong with this one, I agree to implement it as well. I think it is well worded and clearly describes what is needed to know about deletion Venom20 21:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet you displayed a fundamental (and quite common) misunderstanding of the proposal at Template talk:SignetNavBox, where there apparently existed a "deadline" and that a tag signified near-imminent deletion. I oppose this proposal. pling 21:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact Venom's deletion tag was indeed contested and NO consensus was reached. Naut pointed this loophole out to me. - Infinite - talk 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You misinterpreted it. According to this policy (proposal) once a deletion tag is added, the page stays around for ~3 days to continue conversations. After this time period, it may then be deleted anytime after at the discretion of an admin. I did not say that a page would then be an imminent deletion, but stated that there existed a minimum discussion time (no max). Do you think then that the policy should be tweaked to state that once a deletion tag is added and admin can then use discretion to delete a page at any time? Venom20 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"After at least 3 days have elapsed since the application of the deletion tag, the page can be deleted by any admin if the deletion is uncontested or a consensus is reached to delete." if is the keyword. Infinite - talk 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My nitpicking contest-o-meter goes off the charts. --Super Igor 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletion codes are just used as a quick identification of deletion reasons. We have to explicitely specify the deletion reasons so that it is clear when something qualifies as a speedy deletion and when not. And when we have to specify the reasons anyway, there is no reason not to include some shortcut code that helps involved people to disambiguate them. The thing is that those reasons only apply to speedy deletion, not to anything else. And the big requirement for speedy deletions is that the deletion is uncontested by definition (which is why we provide a list of possible speedy deletion reasons).

If for a special case no correct speedy deletion reason can be found, then it is not part of a speedy deletion process and will be handled by the plain normal deletion process which allows discussions. And if it does qualify for a speedy deletion then the reason is that clear, that neither discussion nor identification of the code by normal users is required (this means that users adding a speedy deletion tag can use either a code or the actual reason text as the reason; it is up for the admin to check if that reason is valid).

Otherwise, I don't really know what the problem is. poke | talk 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That is my point exactly, I suppose. Good read. - Infinite - talk 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it appears that there is an agreement thus far on the speedy delete codes, but it appears that there is still a problem of wording in reference to the General Deletion section. I'm unsure what intinite was getting at when he bolded the word if, I though I cleared that up by stating that it would be at the admin's discretion. I apologize, but the phrase does imply a minimum deadline (not maximum). If people are having problems with this, then I suggest that the General Deletion section be reworked. Policies cannot be rushed Venom20 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait another 2 years before implementing. --Super Igor 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What I meant with the bolded "if" was simply to point out the fact that; when a deletion tag is not elaborated on or defended on the respective talk page, the page can be deleted. However, when there IS a discussion created within the timeframe, the 3-day limit is voided altogether. And not be rushed, to be fair... I'm not going to wait ANOTHER 2 years. EDIT: Oh, Igor beat me to it. - Infinite - talk 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we've both been discussing the exact same thing. I'm still in favour to pass this, but we'll need more people to comment then just the handful of us. Venom20 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "but we'll need more people to comment then just the handful of us." That isn't necessary, if people agree and nobody disagrees then a consensuses has been reached and it can be approved. --Naut 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any opposition much. I strongly think this would be great to implement (adding in changes if need be). Ariyen 08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I support implementing this policy. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 08:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to implement this without more discussion, actually. Other than the codes for speedy deletion (which IMO are not necessary), what is the difference between this policy what we are already doing? Erasculio 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything different from what we are doing versus what is in this policy. The problem is that when a policy isn't implemented then it isn't well defined. I think this one should be implemented, but not until many people have voiced their opinions (granted it has been sitting on the shelf for a long while, the active discussion is only a few days old). I'd like to set a deadline, but these are frowned upon, so we won't be doing this. It will just take as long as it takes I suppose. Venom20 13:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For some reason all this just reminds me of: "Q:"When are you going to release it?" A:"When it's done"." ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have used the one on gww many a times and I feel some others have as well. It's an asset and why is it idling? Because I feel that many think this is a waste, when what's happened with deleting with a different reason (even if said page is up for deletion has a different reason). Like I have used u1 and have seen a different reason used on deletion of said pages, not that the pages waited 3 days either... some have been deleted within the hours or next day. Not really time enough for one to think like say on a Sandbox - if they'd want to keep it or are sure they'd want to delete it. I ended up recreating my sandbox and was pretty annoyed about this. I have used delete and then take it away with other ideas and no delete done. I think on the pages that list the delete pages, should list the days they have been up. Reason I have not used the delete policy reasons some times, is because it's like there's gong to be made up reasons anyway... This is clear and strong and I am still not understanding why it's not being used. All I see are reasons that seem petty or reasons that I'd expect a kid to tell his/her mom... Ariyen 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Like I have used u1 and have seen a different reason used on deletion of said pages, not that the pages waited 3 days either": uh, codes like U1 are only used for speedy deletion. Which means, the page was going to be deleted before 3 days, since it was tagged for "speedy" deletion.

"Reason I have not used the delete policy reasons some times, is because it's like there's gong to be made up reasons anyway...": yes, there will be made up reasons. This policy states all general deletions are tagged with made up reasons, which is what we have been doing.

What do you believe would change if this were accepted as it is right now? I see no reason behind your statement, "I think this policy is needed for many deletions that have occurred over the past few months." Erasculio 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) One thing I'd like to know: Any concise objections to implementations as it stands. I am getting sick of walls of text, please keep it concise. (Is anyone actually objecting or are you all just showing off discussion skills?) tl;dr isn't helping. - Infinite - talk 17:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@Infinite, this isn't a vote, it is a discussion. People have things to discuss. Also, if you are sick of walls of text, then I recommend not reading them nor participating as then you would be contributing to the wall itself. now, back on topic. I personally feel that this policy outlines what has already been taken place. Whether it is moved from drafts to actual policy, it doesn't really make a difference. Venom20 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, except: If the discussion doesn't object in any way, shape or form anymore. Implementation should occur even when still discussing away, should it not? That point is voided. - Infinite - talk 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Erasculio, but some deletions I had (Sorry, should have been clear), were not speedy. "After at least 3 days have elapsed since the application of the deletion tag, the page can be deleted by any admin if the deletion is uncontested or a consensus is reached to delete." So, it should have stayed up 3 days. Hence, I don't think this policy should still be in the drafts, but active for all people to have to use. So, what I believe would change? People paying more attention on how they delete things. users, sysops, people all alike. Ariyen 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just skimmed the amount of approvals for this. It's a lot more than the 0 objections I can see. Why do we have to be a thick bunch (myself included, might aswell put myself up for NPA breach) and not implement it already? Discussion is nice, policy is fine, implementation is obstructed, why? - Infinite - talk 17:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Pling was the only one to oppose... Ariyen 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Pling's practice's and processes better. I will not support this if there is a chance the simpler better alternative will be accepted. -- Aspectacle  03:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pling opposed indeed, I missed that one. Thank you. Still, Pling's new article which is to replace policies to introduce less bureaucracy seems to be forcing some attention onto itself, which might be a reason people would like to object to this elaborate policy on deletion. - Infinite - talk 03:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A few points to make:

1. Don't tag things you don't want deleted.
2. If something's deleted and you want it back, just ask.
3. A page can be deleted speedily under this policy whether it's tagged as speedy or not, if it meets one of the speedy criteria, so this policy would have no effect on the situation described about Ariyen's sandbox.
4. Related to the above, I have yet to actually see someone give a reason why they want this policy implemented other than that they feel there is some pressing need to have a deletion policy. Have you guys actually read the policy and really think it's perfect as-is, or you just want any deletion policy, and this happened to be around?
5. By the same token, Pling, you do seem to be the sole opposition, and you haven't said why. Is there a reason for your objection, or are you objecting for the sake of objecting?
6. Edit conflicts are bothersome. This isn't really related to anything other than that I just got one.

- Tanetris 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually would like to see an excessive guide regarding deletion if the policy covered specific scenarios, much like a "what to do if:" (think Aliceandsven's revert war and KH's speculation wars). For general deletion however, we might as well stick to the guidelines for normal and speedy deletions as long as a concise reason is added in the deletion tag. This is something Pling has written in his new article here. It seems to encompass simple and clear deletion guidelines, which are easy to understand and abide by. (Likely abided by without knowledge of any form of policy.) - Infinite - talk 03:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"I like Pling's practice's and processes better. I will not support this if there is a chance the simpler better alternative will be accepted": I agree. I see no reason to implement this now when we have a better option in Pling's proposal. Erasculio 03:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding opposition or support from my side, you'll have neither. I don't object this proposal for the simple reason that it worked very well in the past, and there is little you can do wrong with this kind of policy. However in the same way I don't really support it, because after all this is just the deletion policy. It's one of the unimportant policies we actually have on GWW, and the past months here have showed that it works well without it. Deletion is an easy process, administrators are used to the 3 day custom or speedy deletion for some cases, and users are used to tag pages when they want to delete something. Even new users will learn that quickly even without a policy. Actually I think the deletion template itself makes the process clear enough to understand how it works. We don't necessarily need a policy that tells us how to delete things, especially when that policy actually only consists of a list of possible speedy deletion reasons (the actual normal deletion process is very quickly explained). poke | talk 07:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As poke said, this policy works. It also gives an easy one page summary to every new user (and a page to look short hand codes up for those who don't have them all memorized). And it gives an easy format to all discussions about what should be deleted or not. Therefore, support. --Xeeron 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My opposition is based mainly on the code system, as I explained in my first comment in this section (and I agree with Aspectacle and Felix's comments there). As a lesser issue, I find the principle of "must" and "must not" lists are contrary to the spirit of policy. I also think the new proposal is better, so I'd rather see that than this. pling 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says "must" in it or "must not" in it... nor that kind of principle or anything contrary to the spirit of what a policy is about. I think this this one fits well. No one has to adbide by it, but it's there to be used. I've seen many use it over your's. After all, I don't think we'd want some off the wall crazy reason for a deletion of a page that doesn't make sense... As was placed on the Axe skill nav box... I think a simple delete on the page and an explanation (A reasonable one) on the talk would be better, but I've not really seen that. I've seen questions as to why it's there, but none really as to why It should be deleted... Anyway, I still support, because this would actually do better than nothing at all... Ariyen 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Because some users find the shorthand codes convenient, and for other people they simply waste time because they have to look the codes up, I suggest removing the codes from the policy (or just not having a policy, since without those it's white space anyway) and instead including them in an optional switch statement in the delete template, where for example entering {{delete|blah|R4}} would display within the infobox "Broken redirect." This saves time for people who tag pages and images, because they only have to type the code after a pipe, and it saves time for people who don't know what the codes mean. 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be better to change this one up some to fit to what Felix said far as deletion. It would make much more sense than what Pling proposed. I think Venom's proposal of code of conduct (on his user space though) is better than pling's very short idea. I think having a page dealing with consensus (first part of pling's page) mixed with Admins, Beaurucrats, and what to expect of users would be good on a page. Having those three I think would be best and then work later on towards formating, etc. Having just one like just pling's would be like only reading the back page of a book and not even a summary of it to understand it - to me that wouldn't be good but very easy to wiki - lawyer... where as a combo as mentioned, would be less likely. I should know, I've wiki-lawyered in the past... -.- Just by trying to understand stuff. Ariyen 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You still seem to miss the code scheme completely. Even more, by putting actual logic into the deletion template, you require people to remember the codes, which is simply not the idea behind them at all. The codes are for a quick identification of speedy deletion reasons. There is neither a need to use a code nor to use the speedy deletion rule's full description. If you are unsure what code should be used, just leave it out. Administrators performing the deletion will know the actual available reasons and make sure that it will only be speedily deleted, when an appropriate speedy deletion rule is available. And then they can also include the code (or again leave it out). In the same way, people can just use the code to tell administrators for what reason a page should be speedily deleted. The administrator then will check in the same way if that reason is justified and perform it.

Again, there is no need to mention codes at all, and there is even no need to use the actual speedy deletion reasons. You could even tag pages as speedy without mentioning a reasoning at all (you shouldn't do this though). Speedy deletion rules are that special that they can be figured out without having the exact rule standing there, and if no speedy deletion matches for a deletion, then it will be changed into a normal deletion.

Nobody will need to remember codes if they don't want to, they are just a ordered numbering for the actual available speedy deletion rules we have. Nothing less and nothing more. poke | talk 07:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did say optional. 07:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)